Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds domain behavior: AND-matching ('matching every required expertise'), normalization ('Legal/juridique/recht are the same expertise'), and ambiguity policy ('Empty, unknown or ambiguous requirements remain unassigned'). It also reinforces that suggestions carry no assignment or access consequences.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The 'never assign work or grant access' clause slightly overlaps the readOnly annotation, keeping it just short of a perfect score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only suggestion tool with annotations covering safety, no output schema, and one undocumented parameter, the description covers purpose, matching behavior, and process constraints well. It omits any hint of what the returned candidates look like, which would help since there is no output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50%: projectId is documented in the schema while requiredExpertise is a bare array of strings. The description compensates by defining matching semantics for requiredExpertise (all must match, synonym normalization, ambiguous values dropped), though it adds nothing about projectId beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Suggest') and resource ('current workspace members matching every required expertise'), scoped to an accessible dossier. An agent can tell this apart from mutation siblings like update_member_expertise or workspace_members, though no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The closing sentence gives real workflow context: suggestions never assign work or grant access, and a responsible person's decision must be obtained before creating an assignment. This frames how to act on the output, but it never states when this tool should be chosen over alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.